
Ease of doing business
theboardiQ Tariffs Dashboard:
Powering Mutually Beneficial Global Trade.
Understand the complexities of international tariffs and ease of doing business across nations to cultivate balanced trade relationships, streamline operations, and deliver cost savings to end consumers.

Please note that data for this report has been pulled from the US Census Bureau as of 06.16.2026 and may have undergone some changes since then.
Implications
The US tariff policy environment has fundamentally shifted following a massive regulatory enforcement sweep under Section 301. The structural landscape now operates as a multi-layered matrix. It combines the long-standing KORUS Free Trade Agreement (FTA) baseline, temporary Section 122 global surcharges, Section 232 national security metal quotas, and a sweeping new Section 301 Forced-Labor Tariff Overlay.
US-South Korea Tariff Matrix: Core Metrics & Economic Impact
Metric | Details & Data Point Impact |
Tariff Rates Levied (South Korea) | • Current KORUS Baseline: The vast majority of qualifying industrial goods enter at 0%. • Temporary Section 122 Surcharge: A 10% broad global tariff layer is currently active as an administrative stopgap. • Proposed Section 301 Overlay: On June 2, 2026, the USTR proposed a new 12.5% additional tariff explicitly targeting South Korea for failing to adequately police and ban forced-labor imports domestically. |
Major Companies Impacted | • Automotive & EV Supply Chains: Hyundai, Kia (exposed to auto part friction, though finished vehicles maintain core KORUS buffers). • Semiconductors & Electronics: Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix (highly sensitive to component pricing and tech infrastructure rules). • Energy & Steel: POSCO, Hanwha Qcells (subject to strict Section 232 metal quotas and clean energy supply tracking). |
GDP & Output Impact | • The combined friction of the proposed 12.5% Super 301 overlay and existing surcharges is projected to create a 0.25 percentage point drag on South Korea's export-driven GDP growth over the next 12 months. • It risks a 0.15% permanent reduction in long-run US output due to intermediate tech supply chain disruptions. |
Balance of Trade Impact | • The broader US global trade deficit has dropped by more than 50% year-to-date due to structural volume compression. • However, South Korea's aggressive $20 billion annualized greenfield investment fund into US factories (EVs, batteries, semiconductors) acts as a critical diplomatic lever to protect the balance of trade benefits. |
SWOT Analysis: US Tariff Framework on South Korea
Strengths | Weaknesses |
• Protects Key US Manufacturing Sectors: Safeguards newly built domestic EV and battery facilities from foreign price undercutters. • Investment Incentive: High tariff walls successfully coerce South Korean conglomerates to direct billions in capital investments straight into the US. | • Erosion of KORUS FTA Benefits: Layering heavy Section 301 and Section 122 duties dilutes the historic zero-tariff advantages negotiated between Washington and Seoul. • Supply Chain Disruption: Increases input costs for advanced US tech sectors reliant on high-end Korean memory chips and electronic components. |
Opportunities | Threats |
• Global Sourcing Reform: The proposed 12.5% forced-labor overlay pressures Seoul to implement rigorous supply-chain tracking systems. • Exemption Carve-Outs for Strategic Goods: Offers an opening to completely shield critical minerals, raw battery inputs, and semiconductors from general tariff actions. | • Severe Retaliatory Trade Hurdles: Risks reciprocal restrictions on US agricultural exports (beef, fruit) and tech infrastructure service providers. • Legal Instability: High legal volatility, highlighted by the Court of International Trade striking down portions of previous broad tariff expansions, complicates corporate logistics planning. |
Critical Compliance & Regulatory Deadlines
Corporate compliance teams, legal counsel, and supply chain logistics planners must prioritize three immediate regulatory windows:
1. The New Section 301 Forced-Labor Tariffs
Following the USTR's June 2, 2026 announcement, South Korea was placed on the 12.5% additional duty tier. Because these duties are not yet finalized, the comment windows are highly time-sensitive:
June 22, 2026: Final deadline to file a request to appear and submit a summary of testimony for the upcoming federal public hearings.
July 6, 2026: Final deadline to submit formal written public comments, product exemption requests, and arguments to protect KORUS balances.
July 7, 2026: Public hearings officially commence before the Section 301 Committee in Washington, DC.
2. Section 122 Court of International Trade (CIT) Refund Tracking
Timeline: Active Now (Following the recent CIT Orders).
Context: The US Court of International Trade struck down broad executive tariff surcharges under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and ordered a massive $166 billion refund. However, customs authorities require proactive, direct administrative filings.
Action Required: Importers who directly paid the temporary surcharges on South Korean goods must immediately petition through the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) electronic tracking network to claim their duty refunds.
3. Section 232 Pharmaceutical & Advanced Onshoring Window
Deadline: June 12, 2026
Context: A massive 100% baseline national security tariff is scheduled to hit unapproved foreign sources of patented pharmaceuticals and advanced medical inputs on September 29, 2026.
Action Required: Life sciences and medical manufacturing companies utilizing South Korean chemical or drug inputs must submit comprehensive applications detailing their domestic US investments to secure a reduction down to a 20% or 0% tariff structure.
US Revised Tariffs
Country Tariffs
Balance of Trade 2026 YTD
Balance of Trade 2025 CY
US Census Bureau Trade Statistics
All figures are in millions of U.S. dollars on a nominal basis, not seasonally adjusted unless otherwise specified. Details may not equal totals due to rounding. Table reflects only those months for which there was trade.
Commercial Guide
Learn about the market conditions, opportunities, regulations, and business conditions in countries, prepared by U.S. Embassies worldwide, Commerce Department, State Department and other U.S. agencies’ professionals
Tariff Rate for US
World Bank staff estimates using the World Integrated Trade Solution system, based on tariff data from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development's Trade Analysis and Information System ( TRAINS ) database and global imports data from the United Nations Statistics Division's Comtrade database.
US Imports Guide
United States Imports from Countries during 2025, according to the United Nations COMTRADE database on international trade. United States Imports from Countries- data, historical chart and statistics - was last updated on April of 2026.
Investing in USA
theboardiQ Economic Relevance Score, ranks States of USA based on 11 parameters
Sources : Forbes | USDA Economic Research | TCGen Total Innovation Rank Index | Best States for Manufacturing | World Population Review | Tax Foundation | US News | BEA Data | Wikipedia | International Trade Administration
theboardiQ's Economic Relevance Score provides a comprehensive, data-driven assessment of a nation's economic vitality and global significance. This score is meticulously calculated using 11 key parameters, each reflecting a critical facet of economic performance. It analyzes the representation of Fortune 500 companies within a nation, a strong indicator of its business environment and market size. The balance of trade surplus or deficit reveals the nation's international competitiveness and export strength. It incorporates Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a fundamental measure of overall economic output, and examine the health of key sectors like agriculture and manufacturing. The score also accounts for innovation, gauging a nation's ability to drive future growth through technological advancements. Crucial labor market indicators such as employment rates are considered, alongside fiscal policies reflected in tax rates. To capture the lived experience of citizens, it assesses cost of living and disposable income, providing insight into purchasing power and economic well-being. Finally, education levels are integrated, recognizing their pivotal role in fostering a skilled workforce and driving long-term economic development. By synthesizing these 11 parameters, theboardiQ's Economic Relevance Score delivers a nuanced and holistic view of a nation's economic standing, enabling informed strategic decisions. The Top 5 States in the assessment are Texas, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida and Washington. Texas does consistently well across most of the 11 variables especially in the areas of GDP, F500 representation in the State, Balance of Trade where it ranks 2nd nationally. North Carolina scores as the highest-ranking state nationally in manufacturing and performs consistently across the other variables. Virginia does well in disposable income where it ranks 3rd nationally. It also scores high in the variables of manufacturing and employment Florida holds the 4th ranking nationally for GDP and Tax Washington State scores the top spot for disposable income nationally, 2nd for education and 3rd for innovation. Colorado, with an overall rank of 7 scores the top spot for Education (schools and higher education). Nebraska, that ranked 10th overall, did well in Agriculture where it is ranked 3rd nationally as well as Trade Balance where it ranked 5th. Illinois, though ranked 20th overall did well nationally in F500 representation, GDP, Agriculture, and Disposable Income. Pennsylvania comes in at 21 overall doing well nationally in GDP (6th); Manufacturing (8th) and F500 representation (8th) New York scores 23rd overall with a 2 ranking in Disposable Income nationally, as well as 3rd in both F500 representation and GDP. California comes in at 29th overall and has the top spot ranking in a whopping 4 variables nationally – GDP, Innovation, Agriculture and F500 representation. However, performance in the areas of Trade Balance, Cost of Living, Tax, Manufacturing and Employment resulted in the overall ranking dipping. Wyoming at 30th overall scores the top spot nationally in the area of Tax Massachusetts at 31 overall does well in innovation where it is ranked 2nd nationally Arkansas at 36 and Alabama at 39, do well in overall Cost of Living where they are ranked 2nd and 3rd nationally, respectively. Louisiana ranked 44th overall is ranked 1st in Trade Balance nationally.

Economic
Relevance
Ranking
State | Info | Overall Rank | Agri | Innov | Mfg | Employ | Tax | Edu | GDP | F500 Rep | Trade Balance | Cost of Living | Disp Income |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Texas | 1 | 4 | 5 | 11 | 10 | 7 | 42 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 24 | 13 | |
North Carolina | 2 | 9 | 21 | 1 | 4 | 12 | 28 | 11 | 16 | 41 | 17 | 17 | |
Virginia | 3 | 32 | 24 | 6 | 2 | 28 | 7 | 13 | 6 | 34 | 35 | 3 | |
Florida | 4 | 21 | 11 | 15 | 1 | 4 | 35 | 4 | 7 | 40 | 30 | 37 | |
Washington | 5 | 16 | 3 | 36 | 28 | 45 | 9 | 9 | 15 | 9 | 43 | 1 | |
Missouri | 6 | 11 | 25 | 22 | 20 | 13 | 32 | 21 | 22 | 20 | 10 | 20 | |
Georgia | 7 | 15 | 26 | 9 | 3 | 26 | 34 | 8 | 9 | 43 | 26 | 19 | |
Minnesota | 8 | 6 | 10 | 47 | 6 | 44 | 8 | 20 | 10 | 33 | 33 | 9 | |
Ohio | 9 | 12 | 32 | 7 | 30 | 35 | 36 | 7 | 5 | 38 | 15 | 11 | |
Illinois | 10 | 5 | 23 | 31 | 23 | 37 | 16 | 5 | 4 | 47 | 32 | 7 |